This was mentioned briefly back on page one, by raventhief, but I’ll mention it again for the page two crowd:
The lead author of the study has stated that Franken was correct in his take on things:
“At least one” is meaningless. If you subtracted that one, you’d get the same results. If the study is effectively of straight married families, then that’s what you can draw conclusions about. The study effectively doesn’t include gay married families, so you can’t draw any conclusions about their parenting one way or another.
So yeah, FotF were wrong to claim that this study proved something about straight married vs gay married. But Franken is wrong to claim that it’s a study of married couples regardless of sexual orientation, because regardless of the definition it simply didn’t investigate any meaningful number of gay married households.
If I make no claim about the study supporting any conclusions about same-sex married households, I don’t have to show anything at all.
But just for the record, I can show that they differ: their legal status exists only in a few states, and in the oldest marriage in the study could only have existed for four years. There is widespread debate about the wisdom and the legality of them. Many states forbid their existence by constitutional amendment. One of our most populous state’s public referendum against their existence is currently the subject of intense court litigation.
None of those factors exist for opposite sex marriages.
To what extent, if any, those factors help or hurt the stability of same-sex marriages is unknown. I could claim that same-sex marriages and households are more stable and nuturing, because of the more intense effort needed by couples to create that marriage makes them more committed to, and cautious about, their marriage.
Or I could claim that the additional stress and public dissatisfaction with their type of union causes a weakening of the stability and nurturing aspects of the marriage.
But since I don’t have any data either way, I cannot credibly make either of those claims.
Nor can anyone else. The study is simply silent on the point.
And of course if they WERE to offer such a supposition, the natural first question would be… cite?
I doubt that research would confirm such a supposition, if any were done to test it. And FoF has already shown their willingness to infer fanciful conclusions from data.
The suthor has said that the study didn’t exclude them, and that’s obviously true.
But if you had to pick ~4,500 families from 2001-2007, from the population of the United States, how likely is it that you would find a same-sex marriage?
Think of it this way: the study also did not exclude married couples where both spouses spoke Tamazight, a relatively rare Berber language. But how confident are you that at least one couple in the study spoke Tamazight at home?
It’s also instructive to point out the the author does NOT say the study included a same-sex couple as a nuclear family… merely that they were not excluded.
Also not excluded: double amputees, Nobel prize winners, and graduates of the University of New South Wales.
I assume you are not also confident that the study did in fact include double amputees, Nobel prize winners, and graduates of the University of New South Wales?
The study cannot be used to show that speaking Tamazight at home leads to better outcomes for children. And it can’t be used to show that speaking Tamazight at home leads to WORSE outcomes for children. It has no relevance to the question.
Sorry. Poor wording on my part. The study concludes that marriage shows a benefit. FoF attempted to use this study to draw conclusions about gay marriage. My point is that if one were to put the study into the context of gay marriage, one would conclude that since marriage has a benefit, denying that benefit to gay couples hurts gay families. This is the opposite of what FoF was trying to do. I was sloppy in my writing, hope that clears things up.
Though you are being a bit vicious about a simple discussion.
Speaking Tamazight is irrelevant. But the marriage of Tamazight speaking people is a different story.
You absolutely CAN conclude that families headed by double amputees are likely to benefit from marriage.
Similarly you can conclude that families headed by Nobel Prize Winners are likely to benefit from marriage.
And graduates of the University of New South Wales? Likely to benefit from marriage.
Which leads us to gays. Oh yeah! Them too! Based on the study, access to marriage is likely to present benefits to the family.
I’m going to bet that there was no gargantuan study on the effects of heterosexual nuclear families on kids before we as a culture/society/race moved to that particular formation, so I’m not sure why people feel like there needs to be one for homosexual nuclear families.
This study was brought forth as evidence that gays are bad for kids. It is not evidence for that. Most of us read that and say, well if that was your ace in the hole, great, let’s let gays get married and raise kids. Then when or if the study is done in 10 or 15 years we can look at those results and have fun with them. I’m not sure what is so objectionable in that to MOL and Bricker.
I think this is the point – Franken showed that Focus on the Family was making false claims about the meaning of the study. That’s hard-core pwnage. Franken doesn’t have to prove anything about same-sex marriages to make his pwn.
The study was about whether marriage brought benefits to raising children.
Yes, we can conclude that marriage will bring benefits to a Tamazight-speaking family. Or a same-sex parented family.
No, this doesn’t show that same-sex marriage itself bring benefits to a family, or is a bad thing, mmmkay, but it is reasonable to conclude that marriage will bring benefits and be better for the children, even for same-sex parents.
Sorry. My head exploded when I read that conclusion. I’ve since reassembled it.
This is not that difficult, and there is nothing objectionable about that, it’s just lame ownage.
FotF Dude: Gay marriage is bad. I have a study here that shows nuclear families, that is homes parented by married man+woman couples, are better for raising children.
Franken: That study makes no distinction between opposite and same sex couples.
FotF Dude: Oh.
If my hypothesis is that Tamazight-speaking couples are destructive to family life, does this study support or refute that hypothesis?
If my hypothesis is that double-amputee couples are destructive to family life, does this study support or refute that hypothesis?
The study shows that regardless of your hypothesis, access to marriage is likely to be positive.
In other words, one could accept the bigoted hypothesis and believe that gay parents are sucky parents… BUT married gay parents are better than unmarried gay parents.
If you’re going to be an action hero or cowboy, be those, don’t become governor of California. Franken paused to increase the effect of his statement, calling out bullshit, not because he thought he’d get a laugh.
It could be that you’ll find fault with him no mater how he conducts himself.
The actual study’s abstract for anyone who is interested.
Minnery had claimed that the article showed that mother/father parenting arrangements made for better outcomes than any other form and was using that claim to justify being against same sex parenting/marriage; the article in fact said no such thing. Presenting it as evidence for his position was a gross misrepresentation, possibly a lie, possibly just ignorance that a study that defines nuclear family as two parents could possibly include two parents of the same gender, possibly because his mind is so small that “nuclear” to him must mean “father/mother”, that “nuclear” must be synonymous with “traditional”.
Whatever you want to call it Franken discredited the witness and demonstrated that the witness was misrepresenting the facts. He (or his staff) did their homework enough to know that the witness was telling untruths to Congress and called the witness out on that. Franken had a tone that was appropriate to a representative of the body that was being mislead, possibly intentionally lied to. (Remember lying to Congress is a crime.) And Minnery by the end at least realized that such was exactly what had just happened.
Not that Minnery isn’t close-minded, but that may have been his assumption because nuclear was defined as a married couple. Marriage is not legal between same-sex partners for the most part, and this was even truer in 2001-2007 when the data was collected.
Having followed Franken a bit and read his book on lying liars I get the impression he has a rep for doing his homework and busting the distortions of fact that happen in DC. That could be why “I have the study” got some laughs. It was “Oh here we go”
Lotta good stuff on him on Youtube. Smug or not I think Al values honest fact based debate on issues that affect the lives of Americans and boy oh boy do we need more of that in DC.
